John Therriault - RE:
    Second Hearing Request
    Page
    1
    From:
    Matt Varble”
    <mattvarble@hotmail.com>
    To:
    Date:
    THERRlAJ@ipcb.state.il.us
    9/4/20086:42:I9AM
    4,
    Subject:
    RE:
    Second
    Hearing Request
    Sp
    0
    4
    s7.
    6U(J
    Please docket:
    E
    (O
    Cotrf
    No/S
    EPA attorney
    William Ingersoll
    states in
    his filing for case 2008
    AS 10
    that
    “At no point on August
    18
    did
    anyone
    indicate
    to Illinois
    EPA
    that
    Ms.
    Ryan’s
    activities prevented
    them from
    participating fully in
    the process,
    nor
    did anyone request
    (either during the
    hearing or a break)
    that her
    activities cease.”
    This is a false statement
    since
    Maggie
    Carson the
    IEPA press officer
    is
    quoted in the 8/31/08
    edition of the
    Peoria Journal Star
    stating that: “I
    was told
    by
    our lead attorney
    that
    the
    hearing
    officer
    brought it
    to
    her
    attention and she
    stopped (knitting).
    From our perspective,
    the situation
    ended there.”
    Here
    is the
    link to the article
    with the
    quote:
    http://www.pjstar.com/news/xl
    886920382/Word-on-the-Street-I
    s-Schock-slacking-on-debates?view=print
    Thus, I assert that
    the IEPA has
    not only condoned
    and reduced to writing
    the opinion that
    their employee knitting
    during an IPCB
    hearing
    is
    an
    acceptable form of
    conduct,
    but
    also has made completely
    false statements
    in
    their
    filing
    in an
    effort to misrepresent
    the facts
    to the
    IPCB about
    what
    actually happened
    at the IPCB hearing
    in Peoria on 8/18/08.
    Additionally at no time
    was it disclosed,
    made evident, or
    clear
    that
    any
    members of the
    public
    had any ability
    to
    object
    or interrupt
    during the
    public hearing. In fact
    it was specifically
    stated by the hearing
    officer
    Ms.
    Webb prior
    to
    commencing
    the actual
    delisting
    hearing that individuals
    were to not interrupt
    or disrupt the proceedings
    taking place
    and
    any person
    wishing
    to
    speak was required
    to sign
    the roster at the front
    of the room.
    Thus, due to the lack
    of instructions and lack
    of information
    presented
    about
    the right of the public
    to object
    during the hearing itself
    the only
    recourse available
    was to immediately respond
    in
    writing
    during the
    comment
    period following the 8/18/08
    IPCB
    delisting
    hearing.
    I respectfully disagree with
    Mr. Ingersoll’s
    desperate and fabricated
    arguments in defense
    of his employee’s outrageous
    conduct
    and still
    assert
    that the
    IEPA was not following
    proper
    procedures, not listening,
    and not
    paying attention during
    the public comment
    portions of the
    8/18/08 IPCB
    hearing. Due to these above
    stated
    reasons
    (in addition
    to other submitted
    reasons) a second
    hearing is necessary
    to
    ensure
    the integrity
    of
    public
    input.
    Thank
    You,
    MattVarble
    President
    WATCH
    Clinton Landfill
    www.watchclintonlandfill.com
    mjvarblewatchclintonlandfill.com
    217-853-3836
    John Therriault
    - RE:
    Second
    Hearing Request
    Page
    CC:
    CROWLEK@ipcb.state.il.us;
    TlPSORM@ipcb.state.il.us;
    FoxTipcbstate.iI.us

    Back to top